Skip to comments.Cardinal: "What Sister Lucia told me: Final Confrontation between the Lord and Satan will be over...
Posted on 06/16/2015 7:53:06 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
"Cardinal: "What Sister Lucia told me: Final Confrontation between the Lord and Satan will be over Family and Marriage.""
A Cardinal tells: Sister Lucia wrote me
On Feburary 16, 2008, Cardinal Carlo Caffara (Archbishop of Bologna), after a Mass celebrated at the tomb of St. Pio of Pietrelcina, granted an interview to Tele Radio Padre Pio, which was subsequently reported in the monthly magazine Voce di Padre Pio March, 2008 . Here are some significant excerpts.
Q. Your Eminence, recently in Corriere della Sera you said that you had always had a great devotion to Padre Pio. Please tell us why.
I have had great devotion to him since the beginning of my priesthood as a result of a rather unique experience. I had been a priest for some months and a brother-priest came to see me. He was quite a bit older than me and was going through a serious crisis of faith. It is difficult to describe what a crisis of faith is for a priest: a terrible thing! I told him Brother, Im too little, and sense that I cant carry such a burden. Go to Padre Pio. So he went, and while he was talking to Padre he had a great mystical experience, touched profoundly by the mercy of God. Now he is one of the best priests I know. There you have it, it all began like that.
Q. Did you ever meet Padre Pio personally?
No, I didnt. I never had the courage to go to him, thinking that I would be wasting his time! [ ] I retain that Padre Pio belongs to the series of great mystics who have this characteristic: the most profound sharing in the Cross of Christ, as they carry upon themselves the great tragedy of mankind today atheism. Padre Pio, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross , Mother Theresa, the Curé d'Ars all had the experience of sitting round the table with sinners, living their experiences, of carrying, in a different way, the weight of the Agony in Gethsemane; they testified to the love of Christ Who takes upon Himself, the pain of the man who has left his Fathers house and doesnt want to go back, even if he knows in his heart that he is better off in his Fathers house rather than tending to pigs. Man today continues to imagine that he can live as if God didnt exist; and we see the devastation this has caused.
Q. There is a prophecy by Sister Lucia dos Santos, of Fatima, which concerns the final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan. The battlefield is the family. Life and the family. We know that you were given charge by John Paul II to plan and establish the Pontifical Institute for the Studies on Marriage and the Family.
Yes, I was. At the start of this work entrusted to me by the Servant of God John Paul II, I wrote to Sister Lucia of Fatima through her Bishop as I couldnt do so directly. Unexplainably however, since I didnt expect an answer, seeing that I had only asked for prayers, I received a very long letter with her signature now in the Institutes archives. In it we find written: the final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Dont be afraid, she added, because anyone who operates for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be contended and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. And then she concluded: however, Our Lady has already crushed its head.
Talking also to John Paul II, you felt too that this was the crux, as it touches the very pillar of creation, the truth of the relationship between man and woman among the generations. If the founding pillar is touched the entire building collapses and we see this now, because we are at this point and we know it. And Im moved when I read the best biographies of Padre Pio , on how this man was so attentive to the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of the spouses, even with justifiable rigor on occasion.
[Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana. Source: Voce di Padre Pio.]
I liked the article. I don’t understand who or what has already had its head crushed though.
The Lord has already won the victory. We’re just waiting on his timetable.
The Lord has already won the victory. We’re just waiting on his timetable.
“And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” (Romans 16:20)
“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” (Genesis 3:15)
...” the final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family”....
Sister Lucia dos Santos, of Fatima needs to check the scriptures instead of using her own imagination.
I think it will be over Israel.
......I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. (Genesis 3:15)......
This verse is speaking about Christs future victory over Satan. The He is a masculine single pronoun in Hebrew, meaning He does this Himself, and He does not share this victory with anyone else. The New Testament agrees with this.
In Rom.16:20 It states, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan”—” It was for this very reason that the Son of God appeared to destroy the devils work.” (1 Jn.3:8) That “by his death He might destroy him who had the power of death-that is the devil.”
She shall crush (the head of the serpent)?
No, that's not what the Hebrew and Greek texts say.
Putting it as a "she" will do the crushing, is a corruption of Scripture.
It's not what the Vulgate originally said either, (and those of the Vatican bloody well know it, and know that outsiders know they are in possession of early copies of Vulgate which put it in Latin as a masculine "he" just as the Greek and Hebrew texts represent the wording to be) as witnessed in modern times by the Nova Vulgata which corrected the copy error that had put "she" in place of where the Greek, Hebrew, and oldest Latin texts indicated unmistakeably "he"...although I'm still suspicious of the use of possibly neutral 'ipsum' in the Nova Vulgata rather than slightly different lettering which could more accurately carry the gender sense clearly present within Greek and Hebrew texts, rather than leave it at possibly neutral ipsum. Even still, neutral gender is NOT feminine gender, so Mary was either obviosly being considered when the change was made, or else it was just a simple copy error as apologists such as Jimmy Akin makes it out to be. Noting against Akin personally, for he's likely a reasonable enough guy, as near as I can tell, even though I don't buy into all which he himself subscribes to. At least he noted the 'copy error'. That's a start.
The Greek and Hebrew texts do not say that the serpent would crush/strike at the heel of one identified as "her" either, although the Hebrew wording used at the last portion of that verse can possibly be reasonably interpreted to be speaking of plural "heel", yet that heel had just been identified as a "his" heel -- absolutely not a "her" heel.
The seed of the woman was identified as "he", not a "she".
The seed of the woman was NOT identified as a plural "they" either, as the USCCB's own English language version erroneously translates it, I assume them doing so from standpoint of trying to split the difference and transport possibly plural identity of who's heel would be laid in wait for, struck, or bruised, to then apply that vagueness which can possibly be read into the closing portion of Genesis 3:15 (as that is read in Hebrew) to apply to the more middling portion regarding the enmity between the seed of the woman and that of the serpent; "...he shall crush(bruise) thy head" to make room for themselves to use the word "they" shall crush the serpents head --- in order that the older (and errant) Roman Catholic theology which put it as as a she (which YOU have just re-affirmed that according to RCC theology is "Mary" INSTEAD OF THE "HE" BEING JESUS who does the crushing of the serpents head) which error itself was much supported by the earlier copy error within copies of Vulgate.
What a tangled up MESS Roman Catholicism has made out of some things. Genesis 3:15, the old copy error (or else deliberate oh so slight change of a he, or else a neutral gender firmly to a "she" in order to concoct OT biblical support for Marionism).
I could just SPIT.
It (Roman Catholicism) is near-always so dang-blasted squirmy in it's apologetic, just trying to forensically establish what is that has occurred can be quite difficult to sort out. It's like--- that's part of the plan, the better to hold onto control of whatever narratives there are...
Then the excuses come, and the smokescreens, and the distractions away from some narrow point or another--- the better to blind themselves from the truth of the matters(?), along with blinding any and all others possibly to be mislead.
No --- it is not as you just represented it to be; the OT Scripture was not prophesying that "Mary" would be putting her own foot upon the serpents head.
Try investigating Greek & Hebrew texts, along with a side of Peshitta (Classical Syriac) then come back and show us where it is written other than in corrupted versions of Vulgate, Douay-Rheims and whichever translations follow the same error from corrupted Clementine Vulgate, that there would be a "she" who would crush/bruise the serpents head.
I'll be waiting (till doomsday).
Who cares. God does it either way. Yeah!
I saw that it needed fixing, so I fixed it.
Here is what Catholic teaching says about apparitions. Apparitions if they are approved do not have to be regarded by Catholics Take it or leave it. So Catholics, by catholic teaching, can see what the bishop is saying she said and believe him or not and then believe at Lucia or not and still be in good standing.
From catholic hot dish.com, a citation from the catechism (ccc):
‘All apparitions are considered private revelation because public revelation ended with the Apostles deaths (when the New Testament was completed). According to the Catechism, private revelation doesnt improve or complete Christs definitive Revelation, but it helps us live more fully by it in a certain period of history. (CCC 67) The Church will confirm an apparition as worthy of belief as a private revelation but Catholics arent required to believe it.’
“Who cares. God does it either way. Yeah!”
No, He does it ONE Way. Every other way is NOT The Way. Jesus did not allow human admiration of his mother to stand unchallenged in His presence.
...”Catholics can believe or not..... and still be in good standing”...
What do you mean ‘still’ be in good standing?...good standing with who?...
...are you saying that if catholics don’t believe in certain catholic teachings they aren’t in good standing with God?
Jesus replies "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it."
He is trenchantly shifting the focus from the biological level to the spiritual level. He was not saying "Don't praise Mary," since His mother was obviously among those who "hear the word of God and keep it."
Mary heard and kept that Word very well indeed. She was not just a non-consenting reproductive concubine (womb and breasts), as some here at FR (not you) have insinuated.
But we still need to keep praying for families all the times. Especially consecrated marriage between a man and a woman.
PS. Can someone please send this to the SCOTIS? Just kidding.
**She shall crush (the head of the serpent)?**
Her OFFSPRING, meaning Jesus Christ, will crush the head of the serpent.
Did you see it in the Passion of the Christ?
From Genesis, the only "her" spoken of in chapter 3, verse 15 was Eve, not "Mary".
That said, Mary can be considered among Eve's own offspring --- as can most everyone.
Fanciful imaginings that Mary be as new Eve to Christ's own new Adam, as Paul wrote of Christ being new Adam (but did not write of Mary as a 'new Eve') are just that ---Fanciful imaginings--- which do not fit with Hebrew religious understanding as those were.
Adam was charged with the sin---- Eve was not. Eve was Adam's wife (taken from, created from his own side, or "rib") she was not Adam's earthly mother.
Adam and Eve together were both referred to by God as "Adam" at some places in Genesis. Having Jesus be "new" Adam --- is enough, and covers both genders.
A "new" Eve confuses the issues more than completes anything. Remember, God made man in His own image, male and female created He them. A single new Adam represents the "seed of the woman" (which is a curious phrase, even for OT Scripture, for they knew then that woman did not produce "seed" as did the male of species of animals and man did and does).
Jesus is enough...there being no other name under heaven by which men (and women) can be saved.
I saw the movie. What is the "it" you are inquiring about that I "saw"?
Coincidentally, just yesterday I saw in a music video portions of speculation, and possible pure invention as for Mary's own role which had been borrowed from that film.
In many presentations of the Stations of the Cross, Mary is depicted as being present when Jesus, while carrying the cross, is depicted in the Stations (#3) as having "fell the first time" --- right about or before NT Scripture indicates Simon the Cyrene was forced to carry the cross for Jesus (Mark 15:21, which is depicted in the Stations as station #5.
That so-called Station (#5), as do most others, has direct biblical support.
The previous one, (#4) does not, with the Scripture commonly referenced, John 19: 25-27 for support of the "Station", such as at this link indicates clearly enough that Jesus' own earthly mother, Mary, was said to be present at the cross while (or even only after) He was crucified upon it, there being no contemplation that she (Mary) had witnessed the struggles Jesus endured while on that last walk, before the Crucifixion, and that she encountered Him there and spoke to Him while He was walking that painful walk.
That Station, #4 (as is one other) is pure invention.
If one desires to lean upon "Tradition" as source for those inventions in order to assert those things actually occurred as "Stations of the Cross" depict them to have --- then show us the Tradition--- where exactly were those precise things, such as --->Mary, said to have encountered and comforted(?) Jesus, while He was on the way from the place where He was finally condemned, scourged & mocked, to the place (Calvary) where He was to be Crucified.
Where does extra-biblical stuff like that come from?
Provide source/origin of that exact contention, along with earliest source for the part where a woman named Veronica was alleged to further along the way (Station #6) have wiped His face with a cloth.
My guess is that those two precise "legends" did not arise until some significant time after the event, possibly a few centuries or more after the first decades of Christian Church(?), and when mention was first made of those sort of things --- someone or another was merely projecting upon the event what they either thought *may have* occurred (yet had not themselves heard from from actual Apostolic source, as handed down by the first Apostles) or whomever first waxed poetic about those two events, if not themselves speculating & indulging themselves in expression of 'piety', may have been repeating what had been part of the rumor mongering which was also part of early church experience --- yet was not true, but instead was slight addition.
There were more than a few apocryphal writings which circulated from quite early on, yet were eventually established to be fabrications rather than true account of all which was presented within those writings, although those sort of writings would often be blend of what was written in Gospel accounts, plus "extra" information of the kind persons would invent later to either answer questions which arose, or else just be as a depository for a collection of added rumors which some possibly believed to be true, but again -- was not Apostolic, thus not actual oral tradition --- as passed down by Christ and the Apostles.
sheesh. Why must I need to explain this aspect of Christian church history?
The Scriptures which Catholics give for reference or support often simply do not serve as biblical basis for how Roman Catholicism has turned to presenting some of the particular details which *they* present as if those are Gospel truth, such as exampled in the fanciful insertion of Mary into being present on the Via Dolorosa at some point along that path, before He was Crucified, and then again in regards to Veronica wiping His brow --- those Scripture references (Matthew 25:40, John 14:9 establish no such thing as what is depicted. John 14:9 reads;
Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, Show us the Father?
Why would anyone list that [above] passage as support/reference for this alleged incident of a ~Veronica wipes the face of Jesus~ when it does not even mention anyone named 'Veronica'?
As for Mary having been figuratively placed along the road which Jesus trod while on the way to Crucifixion;
It would seem to make more sense for Mary to not have expected the Crucifixion, any more than the disciples were prepared for that --- even though Jesus had told them in general terms that He would be giving His own life.
Up until He was actually crucified, that sort of end for Him simply did not compute --- they heard Him, but didn't get quite "get it". Even afterwards --- it was no victory for them while He was in the grave those three days...but was instead a disaster.
Mary herself at the foot of the cross --- is that not THE place where we could best place her being as pierced through her soul as Simeon had prophesied at the Temple, soon (8 to 10 days) after His birth? (Luke 2:25-35)
Just a a few days previous (Luke 19:28-44 to being crucified, He had entered the city, and had been warmly greeted by many of the people, although the Pharisees were soon to prepare their next stand against Him...
That triumphal entry and warmth of greeting from the masses would likely have lulled the disciples into thinking He was well on the way to becoming Messiah as they had likely imagined Him to become, namely--- triumphant in earthly sense, much as King David, of old.
Mary too may have begun to "believe" somewhat along those same lines --- "it's all coming true! what was promised me to me by God is near to full fruition. My son will be...as a king?" she may have pondered.
How happy she must have been, and filled with great hopes, that yes, this was happening, her own son was going to be Savior of her own people, just as God had promised(?) --- or so she likely thought the "promises" actually meant.
The biblical evidence, is more as none of them other than Jesus Himself anticipated him being crucified, for the Jews were widely expecting a conquering Messiah, not a suffering Messiah.
For many of the Jews of that age...Jesus appeared to be possibly interesting --- but in the end just another loser, fake Messiah. They'd all seen or else heard of a few of those and later had yet more false prophets rise up claiming to be something special. Those failed too.
So Jesus smeezus, who's this Jesus? WHat a loser. Did you hear about how his pitiful disciples robbed the grave this Jesus guy had been buried in, so they could *pretend* that that loser-false prophet had risen from the dead? PA-athetic! Us real Jews are still on the look-out for the real deal, the one who will deliver Israel (or so the Jewish thinking of the day, for those whom were not touched by Him, and by the Spirit --- thus rejected Him, likely enough went).
Yet knowing full well that many of Israel would reject Himself, what were among His last words spoken as He was dying upon the cross?
But man, oh man. Just look at how much a guy has to write in dealing with Roman Catholic invention, additions, and distortions of even the most basic of things. RCC common tradition = oftentimes TUBAR = tangled up beyond all repair/recognition.
Did I see it in (Mel Gibson's) Passion of the Christ, she asks...
Did you see it in the bible? Can you understand a word of what I just wrote? It's to be taken all of a one piece, although admittedly I have touched upon an array of items. I did so for I know full well what the RC ways of thinking are, and was trying to here again get ahead of what is anticipated could be among response/reply, in hopes of saving days long tedium of back-and-forth which would likely be derailed upon yet another siding, if not fully dragged off into the bushes of yet more papist poppycock.
Whoa! You mean it’s not going to be over climate change?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.